This landmark case, which superficially focused around the rights of an employer to punish a disobedient employee, was largely seen as a retaliatory case following the much less famous Gromit v. Wallace.

Having been cleared of the bestial servitude of Gromit, the bias media alleged that Wallace responded by attempting to use his canine acquaintance in a series of dangerous experiments. When Gromit invoked union protection and threatened further legal action, Wallace filed a preemptive claim.

"This case is ludicrous. Both the claimant and the victim are animated claymation characters, who have no rights within the United States of America. And even if they did, no actions taken by Mr Gromit would have permitted Mr Wallace to enact any form of retaliatory discipline. If he wanted to punish Mr Gromit, he should have out-sourced his job."

The case had several damaging repercussions:

It revived the labor union movement into a zombie-like state of brain feasting.

It compelled lazy, liberal employees to do irresponsible things like take lunch-breaks, without fear of retribution.

It saw the freeing of some 30,000 previously happy Wal-Mart employees.